OT: TMZ - Rose being sued/accused of drugging and gang raping former GF

[veji1]

I am fairly certain the law views that as rape.

No. I'm talking about being drunk enough to black out but not even appear THAT drunk to others.

OK, I'll tell you a story. About 13 years ago, I was dating a college girl. She liked to drink but I wouldn't call her an alcoholic. Anyway, we went to D.C. for this conference for her. She went and asked me to come and I did. We were having a great time but I got really sick. Fever, headache, body aches, hot cold.... just sick. Anyway I stayed in our Georgetown hotel and she went out with a bunch of people. Came back late, was pretty hammered.. got in bed with me and wanted to mess around. I said no several times, tried to stop her because I really felt like I was going to puke.. She was persistent, I gave in and let her just do it. Next morning, she remembers none of it but apologizes over and over to me.. Did she rape me? Technically, yes.. but not really. I didn't care that much.

My point is that she took a cab back to the hotel she found our room... she was coherent enough that a lot of men, if they didn't know her, would have easily had sex with her that night and not thought they were taking advantage of anybody... and she would not have remembered it.

Thanks for sharing Johhnyvan.

13 years ago - I really dont know much about where American law /precedent/previous rulings etc were.

But in todays USA, if that happened to you and you went to the cops - she would be charged with rape.

This is all pretty complex - as is rape - because essentially someone else has used your body against your wishes. Its the same basic definition as slavery, trafficking, abuse, kidnapping - your body is yours only. Unless you have given FULLY informed consent.

Such a complicated issue... One of the problems with todays notion of rape is that there is hardly any nuance in the judicial system in our western countries : If a the end of the judicial process one is sentenced, his or her life is pretty much ruined, they end up on sex offenders lists, spend a lengthy amount of time in prison, etc...

Your example here is very interesting in that regard : I mean she was drunk and kept insisting/fondling/pushing until you just relented. This might be considered rape, but is it as "rapey" for lack of a better word as being roofied in a club ? as being attacked by a drunken guy in a park pulling you into the bushes and just tearing the skirt away ?

I find this lack of nuance - which I can understand, because the fear is that if we start qualifying rape than it will weaken the whole fight against it - quite terrifying. HAd you pressed charges, would this girl have deserved time ? the public demolition ? Worse still, had it been the other way around with a drunk boyfriend coming back from a party pretty blind drunk and just mounting his girlfriend after having pestered her through the "not tonight I am not feeling great" lines and doing his thing, without violence, rather oblivious drunken focus on sex, would he be deserving of a lengthy prison sentence ? of a ruined life ?

I mean it just scares you **** to think of the consequences.

PS : I hope what I say here isn't misconstrued as some form excuse for sexual abuse.

[bullsRlife]

For all we know, "drugged" could really be, they were all just hanging out at Rose's house, and they were smoking weed, and drinking liquor.

The word, "drugged" seems like she was roofied. I bet a good amount of money she just got high off some herb, and drank some alcohal.

I'm pretty sure the complaint alleges that her drink was drugged

Ah ok, didn't catch that part.

[mj234eva]

Good read.

http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2015/02/drunk_sex_on_campus_universities_are_struggling_to_determine_when_intoxicated.html

Interesting quote tho (particularly in bold):

And what if both parties are too drunk to consent? Occidental’s John and Jane both claim that they blacked out during their encounter—incapacitated, by Sokolow’s standard. But proponents of the incapacitation rule contend that the situation is so unlikely that it’s not worth considering at length. “Arguing that ‘he was drunk too’ doesn’t function to excuse the misconduct, especially since it is almost always disingenuous,” Sokolow wrote in his report. “How would two genuinely incapacitated people have the physical coordination necessary for sexual intercourse?”

It that a serious question?

In cases like the Occidental one, where both parties are going through the motions and saying the words of enthusiastically consenting to sex, the incapacitation standard presents a legitimate paradox: Once she filed a report, Jane’s incapacitation became the sole evidence that she had been victimized, and yet John’s incapacitation could not be used as a defense. According to Occidental’s sexual misconduct standard, Jane was too drunk to consent to sex because she lacked “awareness of consequences,” the “ability to make informed judgments,” and the “capacity to appreciate the nature and the quality of the act.” Meanwhile, John was held responsible because he “knew or should have known” Jane was incapacitated—a calculation that’s based on what a sober person would have known in his circumstances.

Sad.

In order to resolve those contradictions, some people are comfortable assuming that the man is at fault. In a 2004 article on common legal approaches to intoxicated sexual encounters, the California Western Law Review’s Valerie Ryan noted that “the justification for demanding that men assume the greater legal burden and be held responsible when there is an allegation of rape may be that, in almost all cases of rape, women are the victims and men are the perpetrators.” But while it’s true that most sexual predators are men, that doesn’t mean that most men are sexual predators.

Wow.

[drbg43]

Good read.

http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2015/02/drunk_sex_on_campus_universities_are_struggling_to_determine_when_intoxicated.html

Interesting quote tho (particularly in bold):

And what if both parties are too drunk to consent? Occidental’s John and Jane both claim that they blacked out during their encounter—incapacitated, by Sokolow’s standard. But proponents of the incapacitation rule contend that the situation is so unlikely that it’s not worth considering at length. “Arguing that ‘he was drunk too’ doesn’t function to excuse the misconduct, especially since it is almost always disingenuous,” Sokolow wrote in his report. “How would two genuinely incapacitated people have the physical coordination necessary for sexual intercourse?”

It that a serious question?

In cases like the Occidental one, where both parties are going through the motions and saying the words of enthusiastically consenting to sex, the incapacitation standard presents a legitimate paradox: Once she filed a report, Jane’s incapacitation became the sole evidence that she had been victimized, and yet John’s incapacitation could not be used as a defense. According to Occidental’s sexual misconduct standard, Jane was too drunk to consent to sex because she lacked “awareness of consequences,” the “ability to make informed judgments,” and the “capacity to appreciate the nature and the quality of the act.” Meanwhile, John was held responsible because he “knew or should have known” Jane was incapacitated—a calculation that’s based on what a sober person would have known in his circumstances.

Sad.

In order to resolve those contradictions, some people are comfortable assuming that the man is at fault. In a 2004 article on common legal approaches to intoxicated sexual encounters, the California Western Law Review’s Valerie Ryan noted that “the justification for demanding that men assume the greater legal burden and be held responsible when there is an allegation of rape may be that, in almost all cases of rape, women are the victims and men are the perpetrators.” But while it’s true that most sexual predators are men, that doesn’t mean that most men are sexual predators.

Wow.

IMO, no matter how drunk the woman is, she can make it known if she doesn't want to have this sex that's about to take place. And no matter how drunk the man is, he should be able to realize this non-consent and stop the act. While stopping this act as it's about to happen is likely much harder when hammered, especially if the woman is giving some half-hearted attempt at saying "no, we shouldn't", the man's drunkedness should not IMO impair his ability to recognize un-consentual sex. So I actually somewhat agree with the above.

Basically, I don't think being drunk is an excuse for either party.

But I could easily see how if the woman is drunk, it paints a picture of a more helpless situation, and one that could more easily result in a rape.

I could also see how the man, if drunk, could more easily blow off the woman's attempt at stopping the act, by coming to the conclusion that the woman is thinking this is wrong based only on the fact that they are both so drunk, or making some other irrational decision due to his own drunkedness, which is not excusable.

I think it comes down to this: the woman is less physically able to put a stop to the encounter, but the man should not be less able to recognize a rape as it's happening, if indeed the woman is objecting.

[mj234eva]

IMO, no matter how drunk the woman is, she can make it known if she doesn't want to have this sex that's about to take place. And no matter how drunk the man is, he should be able to realize this non-consent and stop the act. While stopping this act as it's about to happen is likely much harder when hammered, especially if the woman is giving some half-hearted attempt at saying "no, we shouldn't", the man's drunkedness should not IMO impair his ability to recognize un-consentual sex. So I actually somewhat agree with the above.

Basically, I don't think being drunk is an excuse for either party.

But I could easily see how if the woman is drunk, it paints a picture of a more helpless situation, and one that could more easily result in a rape.

I could also see how the man, if drunk, could more easily blow off the woman's attempt at stopping the act, by coming to the conclusion that the woman is thinking this is wrong based only on the fact that they are both so drunk, or making some other irrational decision due to his own drunkedness, which is not excusable.

I think it comes down to this: the woman is less physically able to put a stop to the encounter, but the man should not be less able to recognize a rape as it's happening, if indeed the woman is objecting.

That's not what took place at that school though. They both "consented" to the sex, while drunk. Even if the neither were actually coherent enough to actually consent. Only she claimed afterward she was drunk and couldn't consent. She was the first to report that there was an issue, so he got expelled. I wonder if she would have gotten expelled, if he were the one who reported what took place first.

To me, if you're going to punish one, you also, in that schools case, have to punish the other. They both should have been expelled.

[johnnyvann840]

I think it comes down to this: the woman is less physically able to put a stop to the encounter, but the man should not be less able to recognize a rape as it's happening, if indeed the woman is objecting.

It's a really good point.. in my example, I could have easily physically stopped this girl... but I gave in even though I wasn't feeling well. If it were the other way around, she could probably not stop me, or any man physically. Truth is I loved the girl and it wound up being decent and I felt better for a few minutes and actually think I sweat out my fever and felt better the next day. She was sick as a dog on the flight home and I remember even joking about it.. "see, that's what you get for raping a sick old man in a hotel room".. lol. She was barely half my age at the time and it was more of a drunk horny girl giving me the "come on you're not that sick, you're just old and tired... get up and f*** me you old party pooper" kind of thing. But, yeah, technically, by law, I could have been a jerk and pressed charges and probably gotten her convicted of rape based on the law.

[mj234eva]

I think it comes down to this: the woman is less physically able to put a stop to the encounter, but the man should not be less able to recognize a rape as it's happening, if indeed the woman is objecting.

It's a really good point.. in my example, I could have easily physically stopped this girl... but I gave in even though I wasn't feeling well.

It's a good point, IF all examples are like your case. In your case, I do not think you were "raped." You gave "in," at that point I feel like you consented. You were well enough to even make that decision to give in. Had you not been well enough to, I'd say you were raped.

However, it should not be assumed that the stronger party, is always the male.

[drbg43]

IMO, no matter how drunk the woman is, she can make it known if she doesn't want to have this sex that's about to take place. And no matter how drunk the man is, he should be able to realize this non-consent and stop the act. While stopping this act as it's about to happen is likely much harder when hammered, especially if the woman is giving some half-hearted attempt at saying "no, we shouldn't", the man's drunkedness should not IMO impair his ability to recognize un-consentual sex. So I actually somewhat agree with the above.

Basically, I don't think being drunk is an excuse for either party.

But I could easily see how if the woman is drunk, it paints a picture of a more helpless situation, and one that could more easily result in a rape.

I could also see how the man, if drunk, could more easily blow off the woman's attempt at stopping the act, by coming to the conclusion that the woman is thinking this is wrong based only on the fact that they are both so drunk, or making some other irrational decision due to his own drunkedness, which is not excusable.

I think it comes down to this: the woman is less physically able to put a stop to the encounter, but the man should not be less able to recognize a rape as it's happening, if indeed the woman is objecting.

That's not what took place at that school though. They both "consented" to the sex, while drunk. Even if the neither were actually coherent enough to actually consent. Only she claimed afterward she was drunk and couldn't consent. She was the first to report that there was an issue, so he got expelled. I wonder if she would have gotten expelled, if he were the one who reported what took place first.

To me, if you're going to punish one, you also, in that schools case, have punish the other. They both should have been expelled.

Well that's ridiculous then. That means you just can't have sex if you are drunk, which is dumb.

[mj234eva]

From that same link:

that in cases where both parties are drunk, “assuming it is a male and female, it is the responsibility in the case of the male to gain consent before proceeding with sex.”

Think about how **** up that is.

Also, I wonder what they do when it's woman on woman rape or male on male. Possibly that is rare, I have no clue.

[Red Larrivee]

this is a possible scenario... not saying it's what happened, but...in theory...

Derrick and the other defendants may very well have had group sex with her at her apartment that night..... maybe they didn't drug her and maybe they all (except one of them who drugged her) thought she wanted it.. she claims Randall Hampton even called her and said that he thought she "wanted it" and that they were just having fun and that they always do that.

We may find out that Derrick and his crew had group sex with a lot more women than her. This is what the plaintiff is saying that her friend even told her. She's just saying that she was drugged so therefore never "wanted it" or consented to it. If she's lying, that is the entire basis of the money grab. Buyers remorse after she got all wasted and did something she regretted and also got dumped by Derrick and is scorned. If she's lying and it sounds like she is.

The whole question here is whether Derrick and his closest friends and assistants are these monsters who drug and rape women or just a bunch of kids with a lot money and a strange fetish for group sex... these allegations in the complaint of Derrick saying "he just like my brother... it won't change our relationship (if you have sex with both of us at the same time)" The question is whether or not these guys are sick like Cosby and think it's cool or OK to drug women and have their way with them... Cave men, if you will, with powdered drinks and pills instead of wooden clubs. I just cannot believe that. Maybe one of them is and slipped her something and the other really didn't know. This cab driver who allegedly had to help her to her apartment would be another bomb here. Because if she was THAT wasted and they didn't drug her but still took advantage of her.. that's pretty sick, anyway... and rape

Any one of your scenarios reflects badly on Rose and his character.

I think the most likely scenario where Rose is at fault is that they banged her while she was "too drunk", wtvr that threshold is. She thinks she has a case because she was gone and the cab driver saw her, so she claims being drugged and it not being consentual either. If they actually did drug her, well that's messed up obviously.

The question I have is, how can you prove that she was drugged, or how drunk she was?

Good post and that's why it's usually never a good idea to get drunk or drugged and have sex with a woman. They can always claim rape if they don't remember it.

Friend: Ooh girl, I heard you had sex with Derrick last night
Side Chick: no I didn't, I don't remember
Friend: That's just the word on the street
Side Chick: I didn't have sex with anyone. I passed out in my bed
Friend: Girl....were you...raped?
Side chick: no, I wasn't because I didn't have sex.
Friend: Mhmmm, so then what's this empty condom wrapper doing here?
Side Chick: o-m-g

That's how it begins.

[GetBuLLish]

Honestly, it feels like this story has kind of died already. You would think, if this story or the complaint had any legs that it would be a daily discussion on every media outlet just like every other abuse or scandal in other sports. This has basically become a non-story in less than a week.

The story was barely a headline for like 12 hours. This type of story is absolute gold for the media, but I think the complaint is so outlandish that even the media doesn't see fit to give the story that much press.

If the complaint alleged a plausible story that rose drugged and gang raped a woman, there would be non-stop media coverage.

[drbg43]

I think it comes down to this: the woman is less physically able to put a stop to the encounter, but the man should not be less able to recognize a rape as it's happening, if indeed the woman is objecting.

It's a really good point.. in my example, I could have easily physically stopped this girl... but I gave in even though I wasn't feeling well.

It's a good point, IF all examples are like your case. In your case, I do not think you were "raped." You gave "in," at that point I feel like you consented. You were well enough to even make that decision to give in. Had you not been well enough to, I'd say you were raped.

However, it should not be assumed that the stronger party, is always the male.

In your case the woman knew damn well what was going on even though she was drunk, but I agree with mj234eva, I don't think it was rape because you gave in eventually. Although it's very borderline. That situation has definitely happened countless of times with the roles reversed, and the woman ending up pressing charges. Who's to say really how consentual it was. Like you said, you could have pressed charges and probably could've won.

[bullsRlife]

It doesn't help the media that this isn't a criminal charge, and just a civil suit. I mean, c'mon, the red flags are waving so hard in this "case".

[TimRobbins]

Good post and that's why it's usually never a good idea to get drunk or drugged and have sex with a woman. They can always claim rape if they don't remember it.

Not raping women is also some good advice. It's extremely rare to be a non-rapist and get accused of rape.

[johnnyvann840]

Good post and that's why it's usually never a good idea to get drunk or drugged and have sex with a woman. They can always claim rape if they don't remember it.

Not raping women is also some good advice. It's extremely rare to be a non-rapist and get accused of rape.

Not so rare for wealthy athletes who are targets for this sort of thing.. like chifan said, women are always trying to get pregnant or married to these guys just for money... why not rape? It's an easy game and they have a really good chance of getting paid money just to go away.

[johnnyvann840]

Friend: Ooh girl, I heard you had sex with Derrick last night
Side Chick: no I didn't, I don't remember
Friend: That's just the word on the street
Side Chick: I didn't have sex with anyone. I passed out in my bed
Friend: Girl....were you...raped?
Side chick: no, I wasn't because I didn't have sex.
Friend: Mhmmm, so then what's these 13 empty condom wrappers doing here?
Side Chick: o-m-g

That's how it begins.

[Red Larrivee]

Good post and that's why it's usually never a good idea to get drunk or drugged and have sex with a woman. They can always claim rape if they don't remember it.

Not raping women is also some good advice. It's extremely rare to be a non-rapist and get accused of rape.

For the average Joe, sure. For a celebrity? Different story.

[TimRobbins]

Good post and that's why it's usually never a good idea to get drunk or drugged and have sex with a woman. They can always claim rape if they don't remember it.

Not raping women is also some good advice. It's extremely rare to be a non-rapist and get accused of rape.

For the average Joe, sure. For a celebrity? Different story.

Not really. How many celebrities were accused of rape?

[TimRobbins]

Not so rare for wealthy athletes who are targets for this sort of thing.. like chifan said, women are always trying to get pregnant or married to these guys just for money... why not rape? It's an easy game and they have a really good chance of getting paid money just to go away.

Not rare? based on what? Other than Kobe (who wasn't 'falsely' accused), which other athlete was accused of rape?

[DuckIII]

Friend: Ooh girl, I heard you had sex with Derrick last night
Side Chick: no I didn't, I don't remember
Friend: That's just the word on the street
Side Chick: I didn't have sex with anyone. I passed out in my bed
Friend: Girl....were you...raped?
Side chick: no, I wasn't because I didn't have sex.
Friend: Mhmmm, so then what's these 13 empty condom wrappers doing here?
Side Chick: o-m-g

That's how it begins.

I explained the John Doe thing earlier. She is not alleging that 13 guys raped her. Naming additional John Does is just a procedural safeguard to avoid statute of limitations issues later if another claim can be asserted against another individual based on what comes out in discovery. For example, say a 4th person who wasn't involved in the alleged rape is identified as having drugged her drink.